It is Miranda reversal, and thus the standard is the same in both federal and state courts. As such, the opinion should be useful for federal practitioners as well.
The case arose out of molestation accusations (and ultimately a conviction). Although the defendant was told he was not under arrest and could leave, he was aggressively questioned in a police station without Miranda warnings.
On appeal, the Court found that the defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda and thus the warnings were required. Because they were not given, and the purported confession was introduced, the Court vacated the defendant's conviction.
Its analysis focused on the character of the questioning:
Saldana's interrogation was persistent, confrontational, and accusatory. Detective Gonzales did much more than simply confront Saldana with adverse evidence. He confronted Saldana with unqualified assertions of his guilt, despite Saldana's repeated denials. Presenting an unwinnable dilemma, the detective persisted in telling Saldana he should identify himself as either a pedophile or an opportunistic molester.
Detective Gonzales's insistence that Saldana was guilty, his disbelief of Saldana's many denials, and his use of classic interrogation techniques reflects the sort of police dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract. Detective Gonzales subjected Saldana to a classic two-pronged interrogation. First, involving tactics that suggested Saldana should confess because no other course of action is plausible, such as confronting him with real or invented evidence, identifying contradictions in his account, and refusing to credit his denials. And second, tactics suggesting Saldana will in some way feel better or benefit if he confesses, such as appealing to less morally culpable reasons for committing the offense.
Over and over again, Detective Gonzales conveyed the message that Saldana had no meaningful choice but to admit to some version of the crime because continued denials—in light of the extensive and irrefutable evidence against him—was simply futile. Insisting on the "truth" until Saldana told him what he sought, the objective message conveyed was that Saldana would be interrogated until he admitted touching the girls.
These tactics are not unusual, nor are they unreasonable. In fact, if Saldana had been properly Mirandized and made the same confession, it might be called good police work. But such an interrogation is associated with "the full-blown interrogation of an arrestee, and except for a Miranda advisement, we cannot conceive how [Saldana's] interrogation might have differed had he been under arrest."
